Persuasive Authority

(redirected from Persuasive precedent)
Also found in: Wikipedia.

Persuasive Authority

Sources of law, such as related cases or legal encyclopedias, that the court consults in deciding a case, but which, unlike binding authority, the court need not apply in reaching its conclusion.

References in periodicals archive ?
As to the disputed battlefield issues on which you must pievail, the statements of law and facts, and the analysis of binding and persuasive precedent, must be thorough to a fault.
While I may disagree with which precedent is closer, and may disagree about how to apply the precedent, the advocate has done a bang-up job directing me straight to the real battlefield of binding and persuasive precedent.
Students are introduced to a measure of legalese when asked to consider a series of core concepts, which include latin maxims, namely, stare decisis, binding and persuasive precedent, affirming, overruling, reversing and distinguishing, all within the framework of the detail of a given court hierarchy.
persuade," looking to persuasive precedent is a natural fit.
13) Persuasive precedent merely requires courts to look at previous decisions for guidance.
This clear affirmation of Congressional intent is persuasive precedent for companies across America.
The 1991 Civil Rights Act did not in any way disturb this holding and it unquestionably remains persuasive precedent today.
2004) (defining a persuasive precedent as a precedent that is not binding, but "entitled to respect and careful consideration").
Because the California law is very idiosyncratic, I don't think the decision should be seen as a strong persuasive precedent in other courts," says Arthur Leonard, a professor at New York Law School.
211) Vacating an opinion may eliminate its authority as binding precedent, (212) but it does not necessarily undermine the force of the opinion's reasoning (213)--that is, the opinion's authority as persuasive precedent.
Counsel are permitted to seek an extension, or even reversal, of current law, but such an appeal presents a greater challenge than arguing that the trial court failed to follow controlling or even persuasive precedent.
While Judge Kozinski writes that "common law judges knew the distinction between binding and persuasive precedent," (66) he himself seems to rub out that distinction.